November 10, 2012

"Do you admire this man so much that you haven’t asked your wife why she keeps having sex with him? I halfway suspect you’re writing this letter because you want specific people to read this column and deduce who is involved and what’s really going on behind closed doors (without actually addressing the conflict in person). That’s not ethical, either."

Actually, my crisis is not so much about Jesus as it is about the impending rapture, which I don’t necessarily believe will happen. But I don’t believe the rapture won’t happen, either; I really don’t see any evidence for (or against) either scenario. It all seems unlikely, but still plausible. Interestingly enough, I don’t think there is a word for my particular worldview: “Nihilism” means you don’t believe in anything, but I can’t find a word that describes partial belief in everything. “Paganism” is probably the closest candidate, but that seems too Druidesque for the style of philosophy I’m referring to. Some would claim that this is kind of like “agnosticism,” but true agnostics always seem too willing to side with the negative; they claim there are no answers, so they live as if those answers don’t exist. They’re really just nihilists without panache. Not me, though. I’m prone to believe that just about any religious ideology is potentially accurate, regardless of how ridiculous it might seem (or be). Which is really making it hard for me to comment on Left Behind.

"As the creative force behind an artistic endeavor, you reserve the right to share or withhold whatever information you believe will create the best possible version of whatever work you intend to make."

I guess the maker of the Mohammed video had no responsibility to tell the actors what it was about. Time for them to stop complaining that they were "conned".

I halfway suspect you’re writing this letter because you want specific people to read this column and deduce who is involved and what’s really going on behind closed doors (without actually addressing the conflict in person). That’s not ethical, either."

So let's be sure and publish this letter, just in case!

It's uncanny. The NYT ethicist has a perfect, unblemished record of giving bad advice. Even when he's giving good advice -- don't hint at a scandal in a public forum -- he is, himself, hinting at a scandal in a public forum.

Once upon a time, major cities had things called scandal sheets. They would hint about scandals involving public figures, and would often take money to bury a story, or to push one about a rival. I guess everything old is new again.

Why? It's a reference to the cuckoo's habit of laying its eggs in other birds' nests.

The reason we have this special word for men (and not women) is similar to why we have words like slut for women (and not men). The two sexes are different when it comes to sex. Women get pregnant. Men don't. Motherhood is biologically certain. Fatherhood is biologically uncertain.

Thus we have this "slut" word, and this "cuckold" word, both of which revolve around the uncertainty of paternity.

Who's the father? We don't know. Why don't we know? Because the slut made you a cuckold.

Liberals seek to do away with "bad" words like slut or cuckold. So they refuse to recognize slut behavior. And they refuse to recognize any cuckolds. She's not a slut and you're not a cuckold.

And the baby doesn't have a father now.

Liberals have no explanation for why our society is awash in single moms and runaway dads. They have no idea why we have marriage. Liberal theory about sex is like liberal theory about money. It's ignorant about the underlying realities, and incredibly stupid in its assumptions about how we can impose our ideology on the universe.

I've read that she broke up with him in September 2011 so "Name Withheld" must be writing about another government official managing a project whose progress is seen worldwide as a demonstration of American leadership.

I feel a little like Martin Luther here, but ethics ought to be a purely personal matter, between you and your God, so to speak. If you have professionalized it -- leased the conscience of another -- you are already on the road to Hell.

Ipso facto, an organization that has a titled "ethicist" on staff has lost all moral bearings. That it should be the Times is not surprising at all. Will Duranty's Pulitzer still hands on their wall, does it not?